To think we don’t know how lucky we are under Starmer.

[SevenYellowHammers]

Russia have a mad despot who is responsible for the deaths of Russians and Ukrainians and has caused untold damage on the world’s environment and economy. But he’s still in power.

The USA have a mad despot who’s causing deaths worldwide and has started a war he can’t win causing untold damage to the world’s economy and environment. But he’s still in power.

Israel have a mad despot who is committing genocide and putting Jewish people at risk across the world. But he’s still in power.

In the UK, we have a dull bloke who’s doing his best to stand up to the mad despots while not leading us into war. And we’re all trying to get rid of him.

Liz Truss was hounded out because the financial money markets increased interest rates on debt. Interest rate is now higher under Starmer than it was under Truss, so on that same basis, he needs to go.

Neither of these tyings are true, and I question the mindset of someone who indulges in fantasies of this nature, as you appear to be.

To be very kind in my phrasing...that's a very simplistic take.

On the base rate:

• Truss was in office for about 7 weeks, and oversaw an increase in the base interest rate 1.75% to 2.25%

• When Starmer took office, the rate was 5.25%. As of today, it is 3.75%.

For the record, Starmer cannot reasonably take much credit for the base rate drop, which was largely due to global factors. The Truss spike, though, was unique to the UK and Truss-driven.

On the commercial prime rates, which is where the damage of Truss's mini budget was most apparent:

• in her brief tenure, Truss oversaw an increase from 3.35% to 5.25% (with some lenders pulling certain products completely, as a result of Truss's policies);

• the rate was 5.45% when Starmer took office, and is 6.10% now. It had, in fact, dropped to 4.85% as of late last year - but the US/Iran war and resulting volatility had caused an increase over the last couple of months.

On bond yields, 10 year gilts:

• increased from ~3% to ~4.5% under Truss, because of negative investor reaction to her policies;

• have increased under Starmer. There was a modest increase from ~4.1% to ~4.5% (similar to other nations in wake ot Trump's tarrifs).

They have since risen to ~5.1%, in part because of US/Iran and, in part, because the markets are concerned at the prospect of Starmer being ousted.

It's a bit like complaining that you had wet hair on two separate days under two separate PMs. On the day Starmer was in office, it was raining. On the day Truss was in office, it was sunny but she pissed on your head.

Sorry missed this! No I don’t agree at all.

You are entirely deluded.

@DrBlackbird Just replying to your point as it being like Brexit all over again - same people, same money, same media… They spent millions getting Brexit and will spend millions doing whatever they can to stop closer links with the EU. The more Starmer works towards this, the more vicious the kick-back on him will be - and any other leader who attempts similar will also be in their firing line.

And yes, throw in the crypto funding too - I saw Fraser Nelson describing Reform as the ‘political wing of the crypto industry’ recently, which seems fairly accurate.

Also, while the media were in a rabid frenzy about Starmer yesterday, Ben Habib was alleging that Christopher Harborne paid Farage £1million to stand down Brexit Party MPs in the 2019 election so as not to split the vote with Johnson - it will be interesting to see how that story develops. It all stinks.

Let’s hope there’s enough Labour MPs to hold the line and stop this reactionary recklessness.

Not Lammy! He's not got the gravitas of Starmer.

Do you watch any news from source? Acknowledge the chaotic effect on the money markets?
And wonder why so many of his colleagues are against him?
He’s inept. A seemingly characterless fool unwilling to listen to advice. Unrespected internationally.
He needs to go.

The markets are reacting negatively to the prospect of him being removed, and the uncertainty of, if that happens,.what comes next.

Your thesis - "he needs to go" - not only misses the point but is the diametric opposite of it.

Yes. The alternatives are worse than Starmer.
Wes, Lammy, terrible.
Worse of all, Big Ange!

‘Unrespected internationally’ - erm, by who exactly? Trump, Netanyahu and Putin? Ask yourself why - because he’s been instrumental in co-ordinating support for Ukraine and rightly refused to drag the UK into an illegal war with no plan in Iran.

As for the rest of the world, have you seen the news and the praise and respect for him from European and other world leaders, and how he has rebuilt important relationships after the disaster of Brexit? In fact, the idiotic right-wing ‘Never Here Keir’ mantra is a perfect example of what we’ve been discussing on this thread: he has been working diligently and internationally to improve things for our country, and yet the Mail and GBeebies crew make up some stupid nickname that sticks instead. Farcical.

There’s another way of looking at current market volatility.
That his inaction/call it what you will, has caused this crisis.
And it will not find an easing until that cause is rooted out.

Trump et all hold an immense amount of power. Britain are, in absolute reality, a two bit country that talks big. I’d rather he tucks himself behind those with power and exerts an influence.
Maybe he’s just too arrogant?

So you’d prefer a Trump puppet - like Farage - who would rather we were dragged into a an illegal war without a goal or an end in sight, sacrificing the lives of British military personnel and costing millions. Thankfully, the majority of the British public disagree with you and luckily for us all, it’s Starmer not Farage in No.10. Trump won’t be President forever and our PM needs to act in the best interest of our country.

Yes, we’re a tiny country, which is why it makes sense to part of a union with our closest neighbours who share a lot in common with (!) and it’s exactly why Starmer has been working closely with other ‘middle power’ countries to forge some sort of allegiance, or ‘coalition of the willing’ to face the changing world order and instability of geopolitics.

No, not a puppet, just someone with a wiser approach. Goodness knows how we’ve gotten to this point, but there’s a fundamental point being forgotten.
All MPs, of whatever party, are elected to represent their community in their constituency. Not to ignore the desire of the populace, especially in pursuit of their own aims.
The majority of voters didn’t chose Labour. In effect Starmer became prime minister by default due to our electoral system (a whole other subject).
I truly believe this current furore isn’t about party politics, it’s about seeking an individual to lead us that the country believes is trustworthy and has the will of the wider community in mind, and their wider benefit at heart.

Things aren't great. But I don't get the logic of people who think a new PM will fix things. I have sympathy for the Labour party who need to consider if he can win an election. And I suppose I'd rather Labour did so, I also need to consider that. But we wouldn't need to if there wasn't this pointless campaign to oust him.

There isn't a crisis, there's a mild increase in the cost of borrowing over the past few days. If it appears he will survive, it will likely subsude. If he goes, it'll likey be for a more left-leaning leader, and one who might feel compelled to call a GE - if either or both occur, don't expecta positive market reaction.

Perhaps short term pain for long term gain.

You've gone from "Don't you lot watch the news? Look what he's doing to the markets" to "fingers crossed the markets might turn out to be wrong and outsting him wouldn't be a mistake" very quickly.

Maybe read more, post less?

I would argue that Starmer’s decision not to follow or be bullied into Trump/Netanyahu’s war is wise - and also the wider population agree with him. I don’t think there’s much debate at all on whether he made the right decision on this.

He was elected with a huge majority of MPs in a democratic system - he’s our PM. Maybe there is a debate for PR, I’m not shutting you down on this.

Out of interest, who would you see as fitting that description you focus on in your final paragraph? In 2024 and now?

I think there’s a wider point that people’s opinion of all politicians is low and there’s a frustration/apathy, low turnout, etc., which is a consequence of many things over decades - not Keir Starmer since 2024.

I do read. But us powerless folk can do nothing, whatever any of us believe might be the right thing to do. That connects to another earlier post - our electoral system has allowed this, alongside candidates not viewing parliamentary service as a duty serving their electorate.
One thing is for certain. Starmer needs to go.

Ironically given your comments, I think it’s Starmer’s sense of duty that is a key factor in his commitment to stay.

I saw this earlier. It seems the markets don't fancy Reform much and that is playing a part in the volatility.

Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior analyst at Swissquote, explains this morning:

Brits are grappling with their own political shakeups after Nigel Farage scored big in the latest elections. The name Farage resonates in markets as a clearer path toward looser fiscal policy, higher spending and larger deficits, just as investors are already worried about Britain’s debt and inflation outlook.

That combination is pushing investors to demand higher compensation to hold UK government debt, sending the UK 10-year gilt yield back above 5%. That’s the highest level since 1998. The higher the borrowing costs, the less the government can borrow, and the impact on growth would be negative.

Haha. Duty confused with delusion!

Exactly this.

Well, that’s a matter of opinion - and much debate!

Who do you think would make a better PM from the current crop - within Labour now, back in 2024 or now from all parties if you’re someone who thinks another General Election will fix everything?